> First off, my comment wasn't legal advice. Fair. Just a bad legal take. Which other people might interpret as advice. > Second, the federal government is no

> First off, my comment wasn't legal advice. Fair. Just a bad legal take. Which other people might interpret as advice. > Second, the federal government is not bound by the linked document Like this. This is not true. You might believe it, you might be acting in good faith, but it’s false. I know there are exceptions, but the DOJ and the federal law enforcement apparatus in general is bound by its own policy, and most (not all) prosecutors take that seriously. They take it so seriously that the linked memo remained in effect even through highly politicized ousting of career officials to install loyal lackeys. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. Are they abusive? Often, when they occur. Are they neutral “might happen to rando people who just got permission to have a little trip and aren’t upsetting anyone who might want to prosecute them maliciously”? Very probably not. It does a disservice to people who are targeted by prosecutorial abuse to frame it this way. And it does a disservice to the people who are far more likely to be targeted by states than the federal government to muddy those waters.